(15-06-2016 12:20 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: Clearly I made a mistake in thinking that you were, deep deep down, actually a decent human being.

Instead, you make it clear that you are morally defunct dishonest asswipe. Thanks for clearing it up

Yes, anyone whose not of a liberal humanist persuasion, is not a decent human being.

Not automatically. But if they condone rape, genocide and other atrocities, then yeah, that takes them off the decent list.

(15-06-2016 12:32 PM)Tomasia Wrote: Lucky for us what you think is morally defunct, or decent human being is entirely subjective, and amounts to nothing.

Which is exactly as much as your opinion is worth.

Although, there is something to be said for those of us honest to accept that we are responsible for our own actions.

Cowering on your knees, bawling to an imaginary friend to forgive your sins seems like the easy way out.

(15-06-2016 12:32 PM)Tomasia Wrote: To be a decent human being, one must imagine western civilization, our modern moral outlook, and pat ourselves on the back as to how morally superior we are to ancient civilizations. Those that don't hold such a view, are deemed as indecent, and defunct.

The point is not that the civilizations in question committed these actions.

The point is that dishonest person such as yourself insist on saying that the barbarisms of this primitives were justified and moral.

(15-06-2016 06:14 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote: Not automatically. But if they condone rape, genocide and other atrocities, then yeah, that takes them off the decent list.

And anyone who thinks themselves morally superior to those living in the conditions of the ancient world, that had adopt a variety of practices for their own safety and wellbeing, communal cohesion etc... is just a phony.

In the comfort of your living room, in the comfort of modernity, where you can avoid getting your hands dirty, where your toughest moral decision is whether you should give a dollar to your grocery store charity, you're just a man living in glass house throwing stones.

Perhaps you consider only those who think like this, who pat themselves on the back at how morally superior they are to the those of the past, are decent human beings. To me their just a bunch of phonies, whose own sense of morality is so fickle it's not to be trusted.

Quote:Although, there is something to be said for those of us honest to accept that we are responsible for our own actions.

So if we're honest with ourselves we recognize that morality is subjective too right? And from this also recognize that we have moral responsibilities and duties? Are these responsibilities and duties ones that we impose on ourselves?

Quote:Cowering on your knees, bawling to an imaginary friend to forgive your sins seems like the easy way out.

I would think those that imagine that morality is truly subjective, that's it a matter of ones of individuals taste and preferences, have the easy way out. They can claim that morality does not exist, that they have no morals responsibilities or duties, like Stevil and Matt Finney here would suggest. How much easier can it get than that?

Quote:The point is that dishonest person such as yourself insist on saying that the barbarisms of this primitives were justified and moral.

If I'm an honest person what exactly would I be acknowledging a particular truth? Or particular subjective preference?

How do you connect the concept of honesty to subjective preferences, that according to your purported foundation have to do with ones personal taste and preferences, than any sort of objective truths, that being honest with ourselves would reveal.

You folks seem to want to have it out of both sides of your mouth, claiming that morality is subjective, while continually making arguments for objective morality, like connecting your moral conclusion as derived by honesty, and the moral conclusion of those that disagree with you with dishonesty. Apparently you been drinking the kool-aid, how ridiculous such a connection is when believing morality is subjective.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

(15-06-2016 06:14 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote: Not automatically. But if they condone rape, genocide and other atrocities, then yeah, that takes them off the decent list.

And anyone who thinks themselves morally superior to those living in the conditions of the ancient world, that had adopt a variety of practices for their own safety and wellbeing, communal cohesion etc... is just a phony.

In the comfort of your living room, in the comfort of modernity, where you can avoid getting your hands dirty, where your toughest moral decision is whether you should give a dollar to your grocery store charity, you're just a man living in glass house throwing stones.

Perhaps you consider only those who think like this, who pat themselves on the back at how morally superior they are to the those of the past, are decent human beings. To me their just a bunch of phonies, whose own sense of morality is so fickle it's not to be trusted.

Quote:Although, there is something to be said for those of us honest to accept that we are responsible for our own actions.

So if we're honest with ourselves we recognize that morality is subjective too right? And from this also recognize that we have moral responsibilities and duties? Are these responsibilities and duties ones that we impose on ourselves?

Quote:Cowering on your knees, bawling to an imaginary friend to forgive your sins seems like the easy way out.

I would think those that imagine that morality is truly subjective, that's it a matter of ones of individuals taste and preferences, have the easy way out. They can claim that morality does not exist, that they have no morals responsibilities or duties, like Stevil and Matt Finney here would suggest. How much easier can it get than that?

Quote:The point is that dishonest person such as yourself insist on saying that the barbarisms of this primitives were justified and moral.

If I'm an honest person what exactly would I be acknowledging a particular truth? Or particular subjective preference?

How do you connect the concept of honesty to subjective preferences, that according to your purported foundation have to do with ones personal taste and preferences, than any sort of objective truths, that being honest with ourselves would reveal.

You folks seem to want to have it out of both sides of your mouth, claiming that morality is subjective, while continually making arguments for objective morality, like connecting your moral conclusion as derived by honesty, and the moral conclusion of those that disagree with you with dishonesty. Apparently you been drinking the kool-aid, how ridiculous such a connection is when believing morality is subjective.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can't be this oblivious to do this again.. like dozens and dozens of other posters of religious angles are. Oh you dont believe in god but you said something attacking gods action and such bickerings.

How does the simple concept of IF.. IF.. there was objective morality x, y, & z points.

How can anyone be honestly unaware of that concept of pointing out. You know YOU yourself talk about things you don't believe in as if, what it would mean if it did... it's the same damn thing in the scenario here. How are you that blind to your own self? Many posters are aware of the point of doing hypotheticals when they're doing it. It's also apparently back to some state of point where you dont think something you dont agree with exists, but some people are relativist, and despite your claims of simplification int eh past, it's pointed out in the actual fields of philosophy how deep relativism can go to specific angles. It's not all black and white morality.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson

(15-06-2016 07:50 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote: Since you aren't arguing for objective morality, are you arguing for divine morality?

I'm not arguing for any of those things.

I'm just arguing that believing that an all-powerful God, is perfectly Good, even in light of evil existing in the world is not a logically contradictory belief, since that's what the OP is suggesting and is about.

I can hold to the belief in an omni-God, and acknowledge that evil exists in the world, but the last thing anyone here can argue that this is contradictory, that the existence of evil, negates the Goodness of God, as if their stating an objective fact, when in fact they're not, which they readily acknowledge when stating morality is subjective.

Your premises are themselves contradictory. If you are arguing that morality is subjective, then "evil exists in the world" is neither true nor false.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(16-06-2016 05:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote: And anyone who thinks themselves morally superior to those living in the conditions of the ancient world, that had adopt a variety of practices for their own safety and wellbeing, communal cohesion etc... is just a phony.

Your lack of comprehension is astounding. I am not criticizing the civilizations and people of the past for their actions.

I am criticizing people such as yourself who call rape an action of "communal cohesion". People who call such actions moral.

(16-06-2016 05:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote: In the comfort of your living room, in the comfort of modernity, where you can avoid getting your hands dirty, where your toughest moral decision is whether you should give a dollar to your grocery store charity, you're just a man living in glass house throwing stones.

It's a bad habit, I admit. I learned it in church.

(16-06-2016 05:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote: Perhaps you consider only those who think like this, who pat themselves on the back at how morally superior they are to the those of the past, are decent human beings.

This would be your standard strawman fallacy. As I pointed out:

We are not criticizing the perpetrators of the crimes, but the loving god who ordered them.

Did you understand it that time or should I use smaller words?

(16-06-2016 05:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote: To me their just a bunch of phonies, whose own sense of morality is so fickle it's not to be trusted.

Fickle? As in:

Thou shalt not kill - except for unbelievers
Thou shalt not steal - except for the promised land, which was occupied by other tribes
Thous shalt not covet - except for those Amalekite virgins

Seems pretty fickle to me.

(16-06-2016 05:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote: So if we're honest with ourselves we recognize that morality is subjective too right? And from this also recognize that we have moral responsibilities and duties? Are these responsibilities and duties ones that we impose on ourselves?

You are posting honestly now?

And since your god doesn't exist the only morality we have is that imposed on us by ourselves and society.

(16-06-2016 05:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote: I would think those that imagine that morality is truly subjective, that's it a matter of ones of individuals taste and preferences, have the easy way out. They can claim that morality does not exist, that they have no morals responsibilities or duties, like Stevil and Matt Finney here would suggest. How much easier can it get than that?

Because we have to live with our actions and the consequences of them. We can't run to a priest and be forgiven. The grown-up world doesn't work that way. Atonement takes work not prayer.

(16-06-2016 05:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote: If I'm an honest person what exactly would I be acknowledging a particular truth? Or particular subjective preference?

You're going to beat that dead horse into a pile of gelatinous, rotting sludge aren't you.

(16-06-2016 05:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote: You folks seem to want to have it out of both sides of your mouth, claiming that morality is subjective, while continually making arguments for objective morality...

FFS.

We argue that objective morality would apply to a god.
We argue that the god you describe violates it's own moral laws.

Until your objective morality is proven to exist, it does not exist.
Until your god proves his existence, he does not exist.

(16-06-2016 06:10 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote: I am not criticizing the civilizations and people of the past for their actions.

I am criticizing people such as yourself who call rape an action of "communal cohesion". People who call such actions moral.

Says the guy who thinks it okay to drug woman to take them to bed. See what I did there?

Since you're referring to actions in the bible, done by civilizations of the past, you are referring to their actions, and the fact that I don't criticize such actions as immoral.

What you're referring to as the practice of rape, is most likely in regards to these civilizations taking virgins, unmarried woman of their enemies they've defeated in war, for themselves as wives, given time to grieve the loss of their families etc....

If you're referring to some other aspect of the Bible as endorsing "rape" as you put it, then I have no idea what passage you're referring to. But this seems to be the common one atheists appeal to in regards to endorsing rape.

And you're referring to me being indecent here, dishonest for not seeing such ancient practices as immoral.

So yes, it's all about criticizing the practices of ancient civilizations. And practices you see their God/s as endorsing. And patting ourselves on our backs of how morally superior we are, how inferior anyone is who refuses to make the same judgement. Though as you claim such judgments are subjective anyways.

Quote:And since your god doesn't exist the only morality we have is that imposed on us by ourselves and society.

Which is just another way of saying moral responsibilities and obligations don't exist. Matt Finney and Stevil will point out that they have no moral responsibilities or duties, so how exactly are we to impose this on them? Can we make such responsibilities exist for them, in a way that for them to deny their existence, is equivalent to denying a fact of reality? Of course not, because morality is subjective, and lacks any objective foundation, to make imaginary things real.

You have no moral responsibilities or duties man, they're just as much a figment of your imagination, as objective morality for other is. No more real than the bogeyman.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

(16-06-2016 05:52 AM)ClydeLee Wrote: You can't be this oblivious to do this again.. like dozens and dozens of other posters of religious angles are. Oh you dont believe in god but you said something attacking gods action and such bickerings.

How does the simple concept of IF.. IF.. there was objective morality x, y, & z points.

It's you that don't get that X, Y & Z points don't follow even if objective morality exists. It's just another series of incomplete arguments.

Quote:but some people are relativist, and despite your claims of simplification int eh past, it's pointed out in the actual fields of philosophy how deep relativism can go to specific angles. It's not all black and white morality.

Relativism doesn't equal subjectivism. We're dealing with those who believe morality is subjective, passing moral judgment on others who disagree with their subjective standard.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."